MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner has been booked for the offences under sections 420/489- F, P.P.C. And all the FIRs have been. Registered at Police Station Aliabad. Necessary details are given below:- Cr. M.
No.FIR No. Name of complainantAmount involved
1. 191/16 31/2015 Noor-ud-Din Rs, 2,50,000/-
2. 192/16 08/16 Jangi Alam Rs, 5,10,000/-
3. 193/16 07/16 Muhammad Abbas Rs, 7,85,000/-
4. 194/16 30/15 Sherbaz Khan Rs, 17,00,000/-
5. 195/16 06/16 Yaqoob Rs, 2,40,000/-
2. Since all the above mentioned petitions involve similar question of law and facts, therefore, these are being disposed of through this single judgment.
3. Briefly stated facts in all the above mentioned FIRs are that the petitioner in order to fulfill his financial obligation issued cheques of various amount shown above to the complainants of above mentioned FIRs and when these cheques were presented before the bank for encashment, they all were dishonored and dishonored memos were issued by the bank authorities which were mentioned in the complaint as evident from the bare reading of all the FIRs, The petitioner was arrested and after completion of necessary investigation the petitioner was committed to judicial lockup. The petitioner applied post arrest bail in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Hunza, which was declined vide order dated 14.11.2016 and the said order was assailed before the learned Sessions Judge Hunza/Nagar, who also declined bail to the petitioner vide order/judgment dated 29.11.2016. The petitioner has now approached this Court for concession of bail by means of filing five different petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is charged for the offences under sections 420/489-F, P.P.C. The offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable while the offence under section 489-F is though non-bailable but it does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Per learned counsel the petitioner is Chief Executive Officer of Al-Karim City and a business man of good reputation. Neither had he entered into any agreement nor he issued any cheque, rather the cheques were issued by his employees, who have been expelled from their services. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is a heart patient and have under gone heart surgery, and needs constant care and treatment which is not available in jail. He further submits that the petitioner is previously non-convict, a first offender, no more required for the purpose of investigation and there is no chance that either he will abscond or will tamper with the prosecution evidence, therefore, he may be released on bail. The learned counsel relied on PLD 2002 SC 546, 2009 SCM R 299, 2010 M LD, 1063, PLD 2008 Lahore 1919, 2007 YLR 1120, 2007 YLR 1280, 2001 PCr.LJ 1802, 2013 M LD 1238, 2009 PCr.LJ 497, 2010 M LD 1711 and 2004 SCM R 1467.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G, refuted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that it is a case of chequred history whereby innocent people have been cheated and defrauded by the petitioner. The learned Dy.A.G, submits that initially the petitioner got registered a Company in the name of Hunza Business (Pvt.) Ltd. And large scale advertisements were aired on the electronic and published in print media and offered luxurious plots in Al-Karim Housing Society. Per learned Dy.A.G, hundreds of people fell prey to spider web created dishonesty by the petitioner and paid millions of rupees in order to have a shelter for their children/families and when the petitioner failed to provide plots, he issued cheques to the affectees which were dishonored. The learned Dy. A.G, stated at bar that the petitioner has issued cheques of alike nature to hundreds of other people and defrauded amount if co-calculated will raise in billions. The petitioner was declared absconder by the Courts of law and have been brought to justice after hectic efforts. He does not deserve the extra ordinary concession of bail in the above circumstances.
6. Arguments heard in detail and record perused. The petitioner has defrauded the complainants of huge amount by issuing bogus cheques while there was insufficient amount in his account which is financial murder of many families, who have been deprived of their life savings. There is no doubt that normal business transaction should not be made base for criminal liability but the present case does not fall within the category of civil transaction. The act of the petitioner involves mens rea regarding the alleged dishonest and fraudulent representation of facts, therefore, it can be safely said that the case of the petitioner is not the one which may be termed a simple business transaction. The act of the petitioner has injured not only valuable rights of the families and have added severe mental and psychological torture into their miseries but also ruined their futures.
Such type of nefarious activities and technical fraud if not dealt with iron hands will encourage the like minded people to commit such crimes with impunity.
7. No doubt the offence committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C., but when seen in the backdrop of its ultimate effects on the individuals and their families by issuing unholy cheques which were bounced added more gravity to the nature of offence. The extortion of such a huge amount from the poor and needy people is an act which is to be dealt with iron hands. If such like criminals are allowed bail simply on the ground that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., it will amount to granting premium to such like offender and in my humble view these types of criminals should not be let loose on the society. Registration of different alike FIRs showed that the accused/petitioner was a habitual offender and was issuing bogus cheques to different people without realizing its consequences and knowing well that he has insufficient balance in his account. Bail though is discretion but it should always be exercised in a judicious manner taking into account all the attending circumstances of a particular case. Bail in the offences punishable up to 7 years' R.I. Is not a rule and bail can be refused in appropriate cases, when mens rea in commission of an offence is proved and the offence is against the society. The law cases cited at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant as the facts of criminal cases hardly coincide with each other and precedent of one given case cannot be followed blindly in another case as a rule of thumb. The petitioner does not deserve any leniency and all the above bail petitions are declined accordingly.